tv [untitled] July 18, 2012 4:00am-4:30am PDT
>> it doesn't explicitly exempt medical centers or offices but it delineates what is eligible and that hospitals and medical centers are not included. >> but it does not specifically exempts them,/%3v but your interpretation is is exempted because it's an institution that is not designated as in the list of need to pay into the jobs housing linkages? >> the zoning administrator has jtmade that. >> it is not specifically exempted. >> i would say he would say that is clearly the intent and it is further called out in the fee table further down'0!bg "into sn 13 -- institutional uses are called out as a $0 per square foot wear as regular offices called out with a $19 per square foot feet. institutional use is there if you look at the entirety of the
planning code section it all brings you to that conclusion. >> -- the is sending administrators opinion? if you could provide that for us -- it's not explicitly exempted your interpretation is that is the zoning administrators perspective -- if you could provide that -- supervisor campos: i would like to have read the analysis to understand how the decision was made. >> x housing linkage, the calculation in the nexus daddy used to ÷"w=zgenerate the linkage -- mel uses were evaluated and roughly
evaluated at approximately $17 per net new square foot rate so that is the number we used. if you look in section 413, medical uses are not included in the table. the numbers that were in the most recent study were directed lead -- or directly pulled into the code, not medical uses, and i was a policy decision made at that time. supervisor mar: thank you very much predella afford to the document. mr. rich? >> if you are ready to move on to the transportation fees, we will move on unless therec other questions on housing. supervisor mar: please continue. iñi appreciate their hair from e
mta and others as well. >> like we have done on the other subject areas, we want to start by indicating what underlies our thinking as we go through developing the agreement. we always want to be basing our requests on them in the things we negotiate for on principles and policies, so you see what underlies those. there was the realization -- i will say that our presentation will cover all three campuses, but in recognition most of the impacts on the majority of the development, cathedral hill will focus mostly but not exclusively
on cathedral hill. it is at the corner of to bus driver transit lines, recognizing we need to accommodate all modes of transportation in a balanced manner, like we want to do on any major redevelopment project. that we've understand we have more so than other projects, a variety of types of trips because we are dealing with employees,xse that may have regr hours or visit the hospital not so regular hours and dealing with emergencies in patients coming in and out. we want to minimize the effect that no matter which way you cut it, there are a lot of new cars. we want to minimize the effect of those new cars on the transportation network and work to enhance the existing transportation management demand programs. you will hear about those and what we did with these principles in the presentation following. just to give you an overview, we
are going to go in to a bit of technical detail because we think it's important for you to hear how these things are arrived at. circulation issues around cathedral hill and the methodology to assess the impacts in the environmental impact report and we will describe the various modes you see in front of you. we will talk all about parking and give an update on the bus rapid transit status and how that interacts with this project and go over the transportation demand management program that is being developed through this process and talk in the end about strategiesus3q÷ through ta for making improvements to the situation. with that, i will have victoria start.
>> thank you i'm from the planning department staff. i'm going to focus on the circulation of the cathedral hill campus and we're going to focus on this campus because this brand-new development, we've heard lots of concern about transportation issues. it is important to go over the access the facility of this side can affect the transportation network and immediately surrounding this site. what you see here is three buildings and in between the two buildings is van ness ave. below that is geary boulevard east west. then there is pulp street and on the left is franklin street and on their rights is pulp street. the red arrows represent
vehicular access into the site and the blue arrow's represent pedestrian accident. let me focus ong:s0l the hospitd walk you through how we think the circulation is going to work here. access into the parking garage will be provided from erie st. only. it will + 6-to exit, you will make a t on to post street's and right only because post disease found only in this particular segment. the reason i stress this is the project was originally proposed to have an address on to gary boulevard, so we propose you exit the parking garage the staff felt that created a number of conflicts with pedestrians. that is a heavily traveled the transit line, 38 and in order to reduce some of the friction between the parking lot
exit. the physical building itself of emergencies. i mean like a major earthquake. that was thexp,thought behind tt design. loading facilities are located in hospital and will be accessed off franklin street. folks will be exiting the department on post but the emergency vehicles will also access the department on post. the important thing is it does have a cut out for the shuttle that will be serving patrons and also employees that will be taking them between the various hospital facilities our campuses and regional destinations. that is on the near side of posts and van ness.
let me move to the medical office building you see here on the right. access into that underground parking garage is very much the same. you will be able to enter off of gary and exit off a small street called cedar street between van ness and pulp. you can then make a left. part of the planning department review of the circulation plan, we are asking cedar street be made it to way west of the entrance. not everyone is exiting is suddenly making a right in going temple street. we would like to direct traffic onto van ness. supervisor mar: is that wide enough for two lanes of traffic?
>> that's an excellent observation that the right of way is just wide enough to eat at -- just wide enough to do that. we will be doing some improvements and reducing or eliminating some parking at the corner and installing able to ensure proper1u[ visibility of ladder -- of bicycles. there are some passenger drop- off various on van ness avenue, but i want to highlight the primary activity for passenger drop-off is located inside the parking crash itself, and that is designed to get cars off the street. there is a specific place for people to drop folks off and either go down into the underground garage or than exit
the garage on the way to their next destination. you see the line between the office building in hospital. that is an underground pedestrian tunnel connecting the medical office building and hospital. the other final thing i want to highlight is the location of the muni bus stop. gcn]s38 stops but blocked and to reduce some of the interaction between cars entering the brush -- entering the garage, it is proposed to be moved to this the van ness. that's a proper location and we will insist -- we will install a place for the best to pull up to that. , the existing bus stop on the near side of franklin will be shifted to the far side and that will allow us the right of way
to create a right turn pocket. franklin is a major arterial and its bidmq volume, so we want to get the cars into the pocket. also an important component of the circulation system. withn thing -- the environmental impact report analyzed to variants to the circulation. one of them proposed is a right in and write out. the other variant is keeping cedar one way as it remains today but in order to do that, we would have to allow exit onto gary street for the reasons i've articulated earlier so that we don't dump all of the traffic on to upholstery.
it's important to highlight these variables because it was analyzed that a full level of detail and i will come back to that point still hold that thought. i want to give a brief overview of the methodology and preface the discussion with this methodology and a transportation impact on the long-range development plan was not applied to this project, but it's a universal methodology used for all land use the bell and projects in the city and we apply it in all our transportation studies. first and foremost, we figure out theomçmz generation -- how y trips will it generate? it's a number of trips on:8g6ñ e daily and during peak hours and i want to stress that includes not just vehicles but transit trips, taxi trips and all of those methods. after we figure out how many person trips there are, we figure out how people are
getting to where they're going, whether they're using a car or taking the bus or what's happening. then we assess where they are going to and where they're coming from and once we know that, we assigned a strips to the network. overall, staff invested a substantial amount time into making sure the methodology for analysis of the project was robust. we wanted to give you the best picture of what happens to our transportation network in the near te and other hospitals are constructed. in 2030, the planning horizon year or what we call our cumulative condition. so let me drill down more and tell you how many trips you can expect to see from the cathedral hill campus. this shows the other campuses
also but i'm going to focus on cathedral hill. on a daily basis, we can expect cathedral help to generate 20,000 net new person trips. there is a reminder at the bottom of this slide what person trips add up to. during the peak hours, it expected to be 1400 person trips. you may ask what does that really mean? we wanted to put up a comparison slide to give you some context in relation to some of the other projects you recently seen or under construction. they are somewhat similar in their location, on a major transit corridor. the first one is the 2001 market at the lawrence, a whole foods project which generates 12,000 daily person trips.
you have the cathedral hill campus which generates about 20, flawhich you heard about earlie then hunters point shipyard, a massive land use plan generates 65,000 plus. as you know, at this site, there is the cathedral hill closed right now. we'll look at the net new change in trips on the transportation network and that's why when i refer to personal trips, we say that new. we backed out and doing the analysis on the trips at the time the environmental review analysis began, but i want to highlight;
folks are always interested in vehicle trips. we are 8000 + vehicular trips. during peak hours, we are u)ips. you can see how they stack up. we put the peak hour because of the are of most ingestion and it's the hour we do most of our analysis. cathedral hill comes in at about 600 net new. hunters point plan is 2000 plus. supervisor mar: you are estimating only 40% of the daily
trips people will be driving to a hospital or medical needs only 40% are going to be driving? >> that is correct. supervisor chiu: how did you get to that? i think every other set of studies seems to indicate differently. >> we used a combination of different things. the transportation analysis guidelines through the van ness specialties district has split a based on earlier surveys the city did. -- a mode split of based on a earlier surveys the city did.
supervisor chiu: there was anecdotal interviews than 11 years ago to get that data. -- when did you get your data? >> the surveys were conducted in 2001. supervisor chiu: so that was 11 years ago. there are not any real statistics related to that date at -- the data? >> i'm not sure -- do you know the nature of those services? >> the surveys done on employees were typical employee travel surveys. they ask you where you come from and what kind of mode you came. they are not personal surveys. we can get you what they entail.
supervisor chiu: i would love to -- out of free to get back to us. if i could just point out how to insert it might seem to members of the public that you are relying on data from 2001 and this is a fairly important topic. what fraction of your employees were driving as opposed to using other boats? >> i don't have that in front of me but what -- as opposed to other modes. >> i don't have that in front of me. supervisor chiu: my understanding is the numbers are far different from what you are estimating that will be the new vehicle trips. these numbers -- there is a lot to be asked. if you could get that information to as quickly, that would be helpful.
supervisor campos: i'm wondering if this assumption has been verified through the mta? can we hear from the mta on that? again -- we have had many discussions over the years about how we try to get people to ride public transit. when we have had questions about health care in this project, we have asked the department of public health -- we are talking about public transit and i'm wondering ifln[9 the mta has an opinion as to how accurate an assumption that is already based on data that is 11 years old -- how reasonable assumption is that? k$bo>> i was just asking jerry
robbins who was reviewing the study and he just indicated he did review the study but did not question the data significance of the data. at this point, from my perspective, i did not review it and i was not part of that analysis. but if you want to hear from jerry, i would be happy to have him come and talk. they question i have is is the mta taking a position as to whether or not this is an accurate assumption? >> i the guy would have to agree with the assessment that the assumption of drivers verses non-drivers is probably a little low. in ourya projects, we see more automobile trips, particularly when we did the tsf study. that is what i can add to the
conversation. >> -- supervisor campos: 40% in your estimation is not reasonable estimation? supervisor mar: it is a hospital where people may be sick or injured, so that is surprising to me. s if i could just ask some follow-up information -- i understand the mta may not have done their own analysis but i ask the county transportation authority to look into this same question and one thing they concluded was even under the final environmental impact report, the planned traffic mitigation measures and travel demand management measures are not expected to be capable of reducing traffic impacts to less than a significant level for a variety of intersections. they are expecting significant transit ingestion and they suggest we consider a traffic mitigation fund to really ensure
we're not going to seek total and utter gridlock at the site. do you have any reason to challenge with the county transportation authority concluded? >> i do not, and as you will see the cathedral hill campus does produce a significant amount of avoidable impact that those interstions that i will cover in just a moment. supervisor are 30 or so of these significant and unavoidable -- >> i will get to that in just one second. thank you for your questions. i a understand where you're coming from and we will be getting back to you on those issues. speaking of the number of impacts, there has been confusion about the way the transportation chapter has been structured. ir tracks 152 impact
statements and i want to drill down on this issue because of the confusion. many people think it identified 152 transportation impacts, want to tell what the profit -- but the impact really are. we apply them to every single campus in the long-range development plan. we also applied unequally to the difference circulation variants and there are other ones for the other campus and we apply them to the near-term and future year, 2030, so at the end you have different permutations of different impacts closed in the environmental impact report and those are 152 statements. those 152 statements are applicable to the cathedral hill campus. 17 are dealing with the projects
and the remaining 41 are duplicative because they go over the same issues which are mutually exclusive. of those 17, six are significant and unavoidable. i will cover the specific intersections in just a minute. three are related to trends and what is construction related and 1 loading impact we were able to get to less than significant level. with that, let me focus on the intersection and let you know what some of those impacts are. we see significant and unavoidable impact at the intersection of van ness and market. the sheer magnitude of the hospital -- and will cover that in just a few minutes.
said impact that the remaining 23 intersections are less than significant. that is not to say a facility of this size isn't going to bring a lot of vehicles, all of pedestrians, lot of trends are writers and general transportation activity to this region. absolutely will and in doing so, it will create some friction tween the district -- between the different modes. it will produce some1/ various intersections surrounding the project site. there is no doubt about that. it is just that the significant impact for the cathedral hill is that those two interceptions. s i just wanted to draw that distinction. -- be lying
supervisor chiu: by travel valid -- i travel down van ness every day of the week and we have gridlock at rush hour. if i end up casting a votedcr this project, i want drivers and residents to be cursing me in five, 10, 20 years for gridlock at this site. when i first took a look at the final environmental impact traffic analysis, i was pretty surprised that it appeared you minimized significant impact here. so i have a couple of questions. these are issues raised in the appeal but i want to understand at this point. taking one datapoint, the corner of seventh and market street, you are familiar with the discussion are on the potential impact there. there are going to be 20,000 new trips of individuals trying to get to this hospital. hundreds of more cars through most of the major intersections close to hospital. yet the analysis you approved
stated at seventh and market ( (p&culation there will only be one additional automobile thatbe will go through that intersection to get to the hospital and in the afternoon after -- in the afternoon traffic, only three additional cars per day. do you find that believable? should we find that believable? >> that is the analysis and since it is the subject of the hearing tomorrow, if you would not mind, we would be happy to respond to that as part of the appeal. >> i am happy to have that conversation tomorrow, but i don't find it believable. i would like to believe by tomorrow. it would be helpful to get a little bit of information between today and tomorrow. another issue -- you use 2006 information as opposed the most recent data we have, which is 2009. by that, you under-inflated some of the traffic impact numbers.